605 B.R. 282
Bankr. E.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Debtor Tasso Laskaratos filed a pro se Chapter 13 petition on March 7, 2019; his landlord Yu Tang Realty LLC ("Yu Tang") had prior state-court eviction proceedings against his family and actual notice of his bankruptcy.
- On April 8, 2019 Yu Tang posted a notice that it would clear the building backyard on April 14; on April 14 Yu Tang representatives and a van arrived and removed personal items (plants, table/chairs, barbecue, plywood) from the backyard to the sidewalk/van.
- Laskaratos and his brother called police; officers intervened and Yu Tang returned the items to the backyard in a disorderly manner.
- Laskaratos claimed an automatic-stay violation under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)/(k), seeking compensatory and punitive damages; an evidentiary hearing was held May 8, 2019.
- The court found (1) the petition was filed and the debtor was an individual; (2) Yu Tang had actual notice of the bankruptcy; (3) Yu Tang’s removal of property was an act to obtain possession/exercise control and therefore violated the automatic stay; (4) the conduct was willful and not protected by statutory exceptions.
- The court awarded $500 for temporary dislocation of property, $1,000 for emotional distress, and $1,500 in punitive damages — totaling $3,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether automatic stay applied and was violated | Laskaratos: Yu Tang removed/attempted to remove debtor’s personal property during the stay, exercising control over estate property | Yu Tang: Actions were limited, an aborted attempt; believed marshal-less backyard clearing was permissible and were addressing safety/code complaints | Court: Stay covers acts to obtain possession or exercise control over estate property; removal (even temporary) violated § 362(a)(3) |
| Whether Yu Tang had notice of the bankruptcy | Laskaratos: Yu Tang had actual knowledge (filed stay-relief motion, other dealings) | Yu Tang did not dispute notice but argued limited understanding of stay’s scope | Court: Yu Tang had actual notice and knew a stay existed |
| Whether the violation was willful | Laskaratos: Yu Tang deliberately acted (planned removal, brought workers/van) despite notice | Yu Tang: No specific intent to violate; limited knowledge of stay scope; acting to address safety/regulatory concerns | Court: Willful — creditor intended the acts that produced the stay violation; good faith belief or lack of malice is not a defense |
| Damages and punitive relief | Laskaratos: Claimed lost/damaged property, emotional distress, costs/fees and punitive damages | Yu Tang: Property was returned; no permanent loss or damage; conduct was corrective for safety concerns | Court: Awards compensatory $500 (property dislocation) + $1,000 (emotional distress) and punitive $1,500; pro se time/effort not allowed as attorneys’ fees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leiba, 529 B.R. 501 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015) (elements required to recover under § 362(k))
- Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Esselen Assoc., Inc., 902 F.2d 1098 (2d Cir. 1990) (definition of "willful" stay violation)
- In re Grinspan, 597 B.R. 725 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019) (willfulness and scope of stay discussion)
- In re Jean-Francois, 532 B.R. 449 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015) (punitive damages for egregious stay violations)
- Lansaw v. Zokaites (In re Lansaw), 853 F.3d 657 (3d Cir. 2017) (emotional-distress damages framework in stay-violation cases)